[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Page and line penalties
From: |
Joe Neeman |
Subject: |
Re: Page and line penalties |
Date: |
Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:42:18 +1100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.3 |
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 00:52, David Feuer wrote:
> On 4/7/06, Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:
> > In constrained-breaking, I use the square of the force rather than its
> > absolute value -- I made the change for precisely this reason.
>
> The sum of absolute values will generally be more stable than the sum
> of squares, or so the stat books say.
When I said "stable" before, I meant that, starting from the minimum, the
weighting function is monotonic in any parameter. Probably "stable" wasn't a
good word to use.
In any case, I think convexity is important. Particularly since the
constrained-breaker has to deal with worse spacing than the gourlay-breaker,
I think it makes sense to put large penalties on things that are farther from
optimal.
- Re: Page and line penalties, Joe Neeman, 2006/04/06
- Re: Page and line penalties, Werner LEMBERG, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Joe Neeman, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Juergen Reuter, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Joe Neeman, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Joe Neeman, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/09
- Re: Page and line penalties, David Feuer, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties,
Joe Neeman <=
- Re: Page and line penalties, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Joe Neeman, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, David Feuer, 2006/04/07
- Re: Page and line penalties, Werner LEMBERG, 2006/04/07
Re: Page and line penalties, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/04/07